Trust ratings!

[shilpyh]

There are two types of trust ratings:
1. Positive trust and
2. Negative trust.
I am anxious about trust ratings specially negative trust ratings. There are several people whose Negative trust score is more than 60 even 100. I think when a negative trust score we should not believe that person. If so 60 or over negative trust has no scope to be believable and he/she is very much dangerous for the forum. If so, why giving negative trust instead of banning them. I think there should have a rules where will mention after a specific negative trust score account will be banned from the site. Wish expert will express their thinking.

[InvoKing]

There are two types of trust ratings:
1. Positive trust and
2. Negative trust.
I am anxious about trust ratings specially negative trust ratings. There are several people whose Negative trust score is more than 60 even 100. I think when a negative trust score we should not believe that person. If so 60 or over negative trust has no scope to be believable and he/she is very much dangerous for the forum. If so, why giving negative trust instead of banning them. I think there should have a rules where will mention after a specific negative trust score account will be banned from the site. Wish expert will express their thinking.

There is a neutral trust also.
What you are seeing now is the default trust system, some users who edited their trust settings see other ratings.. So -32 for you, is 0 for another one, it depends from the guys you trust or not.
And for the point of banning them, the forum indicated that it will not moderate the trust.

[Steamtyme]

Trust and Bans are 2  different sides of the forum punishment coin.

Banning - Removes your access to be a member of the Forum. You are no longer allowed to post here for violating the rules of sharing information here. This is done by the forum staff/admins.

Trust - This is a system of the people, so to say. If I think you are acting in an untrustworthy manner I can tag you with negative trust. If I make a trade with you and it goes well, I leave a positive trust.
Unfortunately this system is poorly used as people don't look into non trusted feedback to pull back the curtain a little. So if you have a bad experience you pretty much have to get a DT member to tag them for you so that it shows up on their profile.

Invoking also makes a good point about how it can be manipulated, but a lot of new users wouldn't notice this as they don't look into the system enough

[MainIbem]

A red tag is the worst thing to happen to a member. It is like carrying a danger as id card. Whether it is one or several does not matter. It is a damaging reputation and no one likes it. There are consequences of having a negative rating. Without a doubt, everyone looks at you with suspicion.

[TheUltraElite]

A red tag is the worst thing to happen to a member. It is like carrying a danger as id card. Whether it is one or several does not matter.

Why do you think its a "Worst thing"? A scammer or potential scammer should be marked with a red. They deserve to be marked as such. We cant let such people roam about in the forum without a red flag on their face.

It is a damaging reputation and no one likes it.

It is not a damage to reputation. It is the reputation. Reputation ruined is something else. Without that red mark many people who are not aware would potentially deal with a scammer and get scammed.

There are consequences of having a negative rating. Without a doubt, everyone looks at you with suspicion.

There should be. Those are the squeal of being scammer and trying the easy way out to make money.
@OP this should be moved to "Reputation".

[Yokonaumiyaki000]

There are two types of trust ratings:
1. Positive trust and
2. Negative trust.
I am anxious about trust ratings specially negative trust ratings. There are several people whose Negative trust score is more than 60 even 100. I think when a negative trust score we should not believe that person. If so 60 or over negative trust has no scope to be believable and he/she is very much dangerous for the forum. If so, why giving negative trust instead of banning them. I think there should have a rules where will mention after a specific negative trust score account will be banned from the site. Wish expert will express their thinking.

There is a neutral trust also.
What you are seeing now is the default trust system, some users who edited their trust settings see other ratings.. So -32 for you, is 0 for another one, it depends from the guys you trust or not.
And for the point of banning them, the forum indicated that it will not moderate the trust.

Just tried to explore the trust settings and i have a few questions, if i may. (Didn't really saw the trust settings, just the bottom part)

1. A friend of mine tagged another member with a red tag although he's not a DT member, he said the account he tagged turned red? why is it?
2. Would having someone as my default trust makes his trusts visible to my account? (this seems pretty logical)
3. What does Depth mean? Beside the max of 4, there's number 2 -- DT 1 and DT 2 right? if i changed it what would happen?

[leonair]

60? do it really need to reach that point?

1 negative trust from a trusted member is enough for someone's credibility to fall apart. Anyone can negative trust you though, it's just a matter of whom did it. For as long as you are doing what's necessary to the rules in this forum then you're fine.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Why do you think its a "Worst thing"? A scammer or potential scammer should be marked with a red. They deserve to be marked as such. We cant let such people roam about in the forum without a red flag on their face.

Agreed.  Red trust by DT members is not an affliction; 99.9% of the time it's a spot-on evaluation and a deserved one.  I'm not quite sure what OP created this thread for--seems like it's an unnecessary editorial on the trust system without stating anything useful.

In addition, red trust is not a death sentence on bitcointalk, depending on what it's for.  If it's for, say, selling an account or asking for a loan with no collateral, there are plenty of people here who'd still be willing to do deals in the face of that.  The biggest problem for them is that a negative often disqualifies them from participating in sig campaigns--then they send constant PMs to the trust-giver and start whiny threads in Meta.  The results are always the same, too.  The trust doesn't get removed, the person gets their PMs blocked, and they get zero support from the community.  And then the cycle repeats.

[Welsh]

Agreed.  Red trust by DT members is not an affliction; 99.9% of the time it's a spot-on evaluation and a deserved one.  I'm not quite sure what OP created this thread for--seems like it's an unnecessary editorial on the trust system without stating anything useful.

In addition, red trust is not a death sentence on bitcointalk, depending on what it's for.  If it's for, say, selling an account or asking for a loan with no collateral, there are plenty of people here who'd still be willing to do deals in the face of that.  The biggest problem for them is that a negative often disqualifies them from participating in sig campaigns--then they send constant PMs to the trust-giver and start whiny threads in Meta.  The results are always the same, too.  The trust doesn't get removed, the person gets their PMs blocked, and they get zero support from the community.  And then the cycle repeats.

Also, I believe that account sellers can actually redeem themselves. Of course the account that they sold would have to remain tagged, because it's changed hands. However, if they've changed their ways, and have demonstrated that they are helpful to the community, and are considered trustworthy in other aspects then I don't see a problem with changing that negative to a neutral.

[InvoKing]

1. A friend of mine tagged another member with a red tag although he's not a DT member, he said the account he tagged turned red? why is it?
2. Would having someone as my default trust makes his trusts visible to my account? (this seems pretty logical)
3. What does Depth mean? Beside the max of 4, there's number 2 -- DT 1 and DT 2 right? if i changed it what would happen?

1- Yes if you tag an account with a negative trust then you will add to it a negative score.
For example i have 0: -0 / +0, if you add a negative trust to me, you will see -2: -1 / +0 and when you enter to the trust page, you will find your comment on the "Trusted feedback", that's because in "your" setting "you" are part of the default trust. Now for me or for any other member who didn't add you in "our" default trust, nothing will change, we will keep seeing invoking having 0: -0 / +0 but if we look closely to the "Untrusted feedback" and we press "Show ratings" we will find your feedback.

2- If you add someone who isn't part of depth 1 or depth 2 to your default trust, you will see that some Bitcointalkers that had previously 0 trust with -2 and the opposite things for the others which depends from the type of the feedback he left : Negative or positive.
Now if you exclude (~ then name) someone from depth 1 or 2 from your trust settings, his feedbacks will not appear for you anymore in the Trusted feedback but instead in the Untrusted feedback and thus means you will see his feedbacks deducted from the trust rating of users.

3- theymos for example is depth1, think about it like a grandfather, he trusts his children and add them to his circle so they become a depth2 default trust members. Then those children trusted respectively their children also so they become depth3 and so on, so the next generation become depth4.
Press the "Hierarchical view" at the end of the page to have an idea about this.
You can trust only depth1 (theymos, HostFat, dooglus, Maged, dserrano5, OgNasty, Tomatocage,
SaltySpitoon, philipma1957, Cyrus, Blazed, hilariousandco, OldScammerTag) or depth1+2 or 1+2+3 or the four.
Now you can edit your trust settings as you wish and you can personalise it by adding or excluding any member you like but keep in mind that the others will always see depth2 as the default trust (apart from some members who edited it of course).

I hope I was clear in my explanation